A Thought on the Arrestation of Evolution

I don't pretend to be a Biologist, and certainly my views of evolution are limited to what I've learned in high school and more recently in college. However, while sitting in a Biology 204 class I had an inspiration.

We were discussing the theories of Darwinism (natural selection, etc.) when I realized that, under the scientific definition of Evolution, humans may have actually cut the process off.

I'll explain. Scientists define evolution as a change in allele frequency over time in a population. The idea is that alleles change in an animal's genes, changing something about its physical makeup that allows it to survive something that the other animals in its population could not. Eventually only the animals with the changed allele are able to survive and reproduce, and they begin a whole new population that has this genetic difference.

My argument is that humans, as incredibly sapient beings, respond to their environment on a different level than other species. Rather than follow pure instinct, humans will face a problem with a solution in mind. When the weather becomes too hot for comfort, most humans will use and air-conditioning unit to keep cool. If there is an allele change that causes larger sweat glands, it makes no difference in the population because those with smaller sweat glands do not decrease in number (or at least, not because of the heat in most cases).

Another example is in the development of medicine. Congenital heart failure is a fairly common heart problem that affects humans. In an environment where there were no doctors, those with congenital heart failure might eventually die off before reproducing, lessening the occurrence of the disease in the next generation. However, humans have compassion on the sick and create medications and/or medical procedures that allow the affected human to reproduce, passing on the heart problems to the next generation or so. And if there is an allele change somewhere that causes protection against congenital heart failure, it will not become a predominant allele in the human population because there are still significant numbers of humans who are susceptible.

I realize that I might be wrong, because there is no possible way I'll ever be alive long enough to see an evolutionary change--or so my professors tell me. But if I am right, then in order for Evolution to still apply to humans, a new definition might be necessary. Or maybe a new kind of evolution will need to be introduced to the scientific journals: Intellectual Evolution, or the evolution of the human mind to adapt to changing circumstances. Survival of the Smartest.

Just some thoughts. Feel free to argue.